Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:29, 2 March 2009

User:VirtualSteve/Status

This user has been an admin for 17 years, 6 months and 28 days.

This administrator can and will make difficult blocks if needed.

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 2 months and 8 days.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Rick Warren

Hello. Do we really need full protection on that article? Most people seem to agree on contentious material being deleted. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's only been a day Phoenix - so yes I think we do for a bit longer. Let's see if all others can discuss without too much disruption or COI for a bit longer.--VS 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC) PSIndeed you only have to look at the discussion at the related article Saddleback Church to note that there is not a great deal of harmony between the editors.--VS 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this while I was away. I'm also inclined to leave the protection for a few days. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• A pleasure Kevin. I'll be around for these articles particularly over the next few days and happy to work with you throughout.--VS 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. This is kinda funny and I feel like a 3rd rate Sherlock Holmes but since you seem to be the admin whos taking care of all this, I thought you might wanna know: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrishpaytas Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment left at above linked page.--VS 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please note my important update regarding the deceitful practices of user Lyonscc (Chris Lyons). He has been a major player in the Rick Warren edit wars; his selective deception is only adding fuel to the chaos. Thank you. FYI-Alerter (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you may mean well FYI-Alerter but your anonymous call doesn't help much. For example in my office I am quite certain there have been, over the years, a number of wikipedian editors as I work in a very large office. We have never colaborated - ever - in fact I have never identified myself to any other editor, met them, or discussed[REDACTED] with them, but given we all work for the same organisation, come from similar educational backgrounds etc there may be some similarity in our interests. Okay so that doesn't mean that the two editors named here couldn't be sock, except of course when you say that he is correct to deny that both accounts are him - assuming you are correct, means they couldn't be socks, so they could only be meat puppets; however at this stage I still don't see evidence of that - so I still think that we should remain on watch only at this stage.--VS 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, please see: User_talk:Kevin#Rick_Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

_{Earlier you told me i should promptly "complain about any other regular editor's lack of civility" but i'm not sure if this is going to be a justifiable complaint or just room for me to learn more: You said: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Teledildonix314#Your_frustrations_at_Kevin.27s_page}

Then a few minutes ago, Collect said: "Refusals to compromise I take it are fine by you?" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Rick_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=273574732

Then Collect explained why they felt there was a refusal to compromise.

A few weeks ago, i wouldn't have dreamed about complaining, it's so trivial, right? Or am i wrong? Because you and the other administrators have had me walking on eggshells for fear that i'm not perfectly policing my language to be politically correct and no personal attacks and no insinuations of another editor's motives or capabilities.... but that's the sort of treatment i'm getting from Collect repeatedly, among other editors i dealt with on that page. I know Collect didn't use profanities, i know i'm supposed to Assume Good Faith, but "Refusals to compromise I take it are fine by you?" is (to me) the exact opposite of AGF, and it discourages my AGF abilities. I swear i never would have complained about this before, if you hadn't shown me how closely i was being policed and how much scolding you and the other administrators said i needed, but now i think it's only fair to point this out as a comparison/ contrast to the things you've been discussing in 'my' demeanor and tone. Goodness this sounds ridiculous to me now, i can't believe i've spent this much time on topics where i wasn't even a really interested party in the first place, i think a little piece of me died inside (a piece which used to be somewhat practical and had a great sense of proportion). On second thought, let's forget i even mentioned anything, and i'm going to just get on with more productive concerns. Thanks, it was enough for me to just vent, i won't bring that up again unless it becomes obviously out of control. Teledildonix314 ~ ~ _4-1-1 09:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Provided a return comment of support at your talk page.--VS 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am asking for advice as to the proper Misplaced Pages manner in which to proceed to complain about Teledildonix314 . While things certainly remain unresolved on the Rick Warren article, this editor continues his personal attacks and attacks on others spiritual beliefs. I am trying to be reasonable and, in fact, am working on a short proposal of my own; I do want to be fair and compromise where appropriate. He is not helping and I want to know what procedure to follow, it is getting tiring. Thanks. CarverM (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Diffs please CarverM? and exactly what parts are personal attacks?--VS 09:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I drop my request of you re personal attacks, it's not worth it. However, for the record, here is a short list re personal beliefs: the incredible hypocrisy in this gobbledygook prayer which is offensive to atheists - Heterosexual Supremacist behavior - biblical gobbledygook - Warren's superstition-mongering - fantasy-based career of charlatanism and scapegoating - Warren is a heterosexual supremacist (along the lines of an ethnic supremacist or a jingoistic supremacist etc etc) - professional bigots - "hogwash purveyor" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarverM (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Your comment above says this editor continues his personal attacks on others spiritual beliefs with the operative word being continues I will require your diffs please CarverM - else I will have to conclude poorly on your report.--VS 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)v

I guess you could simply view his posts today. It uses similar language. However, I am refraining from this course, I just wanted to answer your questions. CarverM (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Glad you are online, please refrain completely from further off-hand comments and provide me with the diffs that sparked your initial claim.--VS 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Another likely conflict of interest matter with respect to Rick Warren and Saddleback Church

Hi Steve. I don't mean to dump gasoline on an already difficult situation, but you might say that duty calls.

• The contributions list for CarverM indicates that he has almost exclusively been editing articles that are in some way connected with Saddleback Church, including Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Warren's book), The Purpose Driven Church (also a book by Warren), Doug Fields (a pastor at Saddleback), and Richard Abanes (a lay minister and former staffer at Saddleback).

• There is a rather remarkable mockup of a version of the Saddleback Church page in CarverM's user space, here. It is written as a promotional piece and certainly wouldn't qualify as an actual article. Why is it there?

• I'll note that the username CarverM bears a resemblance to the name Mark Carver. Carver was at one time (2006) described as "a top aide to mega-church pastor and best selling author Rick Warren." Throwing "Mark Carver" and "Rick Warren" into Google yields 290 hits that I'll hesitate to characterize, but there are strong indications that CarverM is potentially not just another editor, and may be tightly connected with Warren.

Regards. Mike Doughney (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never hidden my affiliations nor brought them up. So I am unsure as to why this is an issue. I suppose you will try and bring up COI but I suggest it's not relevant. I have endeavored to keep my edits and suggestions to the facts. If you choose to try and disqualify my edits then I suppose you should also do so for any editor who identifies themselves as gay. As to the Google hit that you most likely found related to a video game, those were all a lie fabricated by a blogger looking for a "scoop". Again, irrelevant to the issue of the Rick Warren article. CarverM (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The "video game" matter is irrelevant and a straw man. You know that. What's relevant is your professional relationship, if any, with Warren and Saddleback, and the fact that you have been systematically obstructing edits to the Rick Warren article. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not, as you say, been obstructing. I have, however, tried to be fair to the facts and the NPOV, BLP, coatrack, etc. policies of Misplaced Pages. I have made suggestions as to fair language, etc. Just because you don't agree with the suggestions doesn't mean I'm obstructing. I must also point out I am not the only one to insist on fair treatment of the subject. CarverM (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, way. I have been pushed to the brink of administrative sanctions and mediator scoldings for over two months, and now you are going to try to pretend your Conflict Of Interest hasn't been integral all along?! Not only is this egregiously dishonest and an incredibly offensive discovery after so much effort has gone into accomodating your insistence of civility and demands of tolerance and flexibility toward your concerns, you are going to claim that "any editor who identifies themselves as gay" has as much Conflict Of Interest as the editor who didn't divulge their personal employment with the subject of the articles in question despite months of Discussion undertaken in Good Faith? I am so flabbergasted, i'm going to have to wikibreak for a while until my urge to supernova subsides. I am all done playing these games of "civility and respect for editors in good faith" when they are being so abusively manipulated. And to think i actually put hours of effort into policing and self-censoring my language for the sake of accomodating your concerns! Outrageous! Teledildonix314 ~ ~ _4-1-1 19:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this is unacceptable. For Mr. Carver to have been stonewalling any attempt to put information into the article which reflects negatively on Rick Warren, without disclosing his conflict of interest, is the very reason that WP:COI was created. Anybody up for taking this to WP:COIN and maybe getting at least a topic ban out of it? I don't recall having used COIN before, so if somebody else wants to take it there and go through the process i'll be more than happy to contribute. Firestorm 20:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm so full of fiery indignation, i took the initiative of trying this for the very first time, myself. Teledildonix314 ~ ~ _4-1-1 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Warren_and_Saddleback_Church_and_Saddlebacking

WP:CIVIL

CarverD might or might not provide diffs, but I am so concerned about the lack of enforcement of WP:CIVIL that I will provide them. I say this as a secular person who has been personally offended by proselytizing Christians for decades, but also concerned about the level of discourse on Misplaced Pages. No matter how egregious Carver's violations are (I am agnostic on that issue, like many others), there is no call for statements like:

• "blood sacrifice cult"
• "blood sacrifice cult", "charlatans"
• "blood sacrifice cult"
• "relying on faith is an explicit choice to suspend intelligent analysis", "superstition"
• unnecessarily provocative remark in violation of WP:NOT#CHAT and WP:NOT#BATTLE.

That's just in the last 24 hours. I haven't looked at 28 Feb edits yet, but hopefully won't need to. THF (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular, your last bullet point accurately describes the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say personal attack. I said WP:CIVIL. None of these statements can possibly be helpful in editing the article. THF (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. They are helpful in illustrating the basic incivility of those who demand this article be sanitized of facts to which they are taking offense, not to mention, two blatant COI matters, the latest now involving a professional relationship with the article's subject. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even editors on the side of the angels need to adhere to WP:CIVIL. It's not an optional policy. THF (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it, so there aren't two wrongs here. That people commonly sense incivility in this kind of criticism, I think, is the only problem here. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@THF - thanks for dropping by and also for your attempt at constructive comment at the COIN thread. This issue has been going on for months indeed reaching the stage where I have posted in one or two locations an offer to block at the next offence any regular editor at the Rick Warren pages who is complained off (legitimately) for incivility and/or directly attacking another editor. From that perspective I treat all editors equally - indeed I have short blocked members of both sides of the debate and indefinitely blocked one editor to date. I play no violin when I say that policing this situation isn't easy probably because religion is involved. In terms of attack Teledildonix (and all others know) that where direct name calling are used they (and all others) will; unfortunately we have reached this stage; get the same treatment. If others who have been offended can point to a direct statement (not dredged out of the past but poste my having to resort to an offer to block immediately) then I will consider that exact material. In terms of civility I note that Firestorm is attempting with some success at the policing of such components and I will allow him the opportunity to do so - although that editor (as you can see above) will come here also to seek assistance as necessary.--VS 22:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity for myself to try and help the involved parties out. However, I do support the offer to block anyone who breaches WP:CIVIL, from either side. In general, I feel that the arguments of the pro-inclusion side to be far more compelling, but the way they present them is terrible. Both sides seem to have a vested interest in this article, and are both resorting to name-calling and argumentum ad hominem to try and discredit the others. I'm trying to curb it as best I can, but I support your efforts to block offenders. Firestorm 22:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm - as the voice of reason do you support a block on Teledildonix for any or all of the edits listed above by THF?--VS 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a really tough decision. I think that if you blocked him for a defined period of time like 72 hours or a week (not indef) it would be justified, but if I were an admin I would consider this his final warning. That said, i'm not an admin, so i'll defer to your judgment. Either way you decide, I won't complain about it. Now, i'm off to dinner, so i'll be gone for a few hours. Firestorm 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned some time ago, given the nature of what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren for weeks, I don't think a block here gains you anything. I'd suggest instead that both Rick Warren and Talk:Rick Warren should be fully protected for a week to allow all parties to cool off after the events of today. Adding the consensus language to the article - all five points originally proposed at (see my point of information halfway down) - before doing this would be a nice consolation prize after all this, but I'm not holding my breath. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, THF, i will not accept this characterization, because those remarks were specifically made when i was a newbie who had not been given instruction from any kind of Welcome Wagon and had not been assisted in any serious way (at that time) by an administrator or mediator, and had only just barely begun to stumble upon the rudiments of WP:CIVIL due to the polite suggestions of other editors there; and those remarks of mine were not made until i had been specifically goaded by the two editors who have clear-cut COI, beginning with Manutdglory telling everybody i was a 'vandal' and CarverM telling everybody i should be dismissed as a 'radical gay activist'. If only we knew then what we know now about what should have been divulged! And there i was, falling all over myself to divulge every possible shred of COI i might have, for the sake of helping all other editors to identify my possible newbie Non-NPOV and keep it cleanly out of the Article space and strictly on the Discussion space where i could be instructed! As a newbie, i could have been shown the error of my ways and given education in the context of Good Faith; instead, you are chastising me for failure to be Civil when i was the actual subject of those kinds of personal attacks. This hypocrisy is precisely why i feel such ire, and your usage of WP:KETTLE is only adding insult to injury.

On top of such provocation-- which was a spectacular WP:BITE if ever i've now heard of such-- CarverM then proceeded on my TalkPage, on administrator TalkPages, and on the Talk:Rick_Warren and Talk:Saddleback_Church to post such claims as "I have never hidden my affiliations nor brought them up. So I am unsure as to why this is an issue. I suppose you will try and bring up COI but I suggest it's not relevant. I have endeavored to keep my edits and suggestions to the facts. If you choose to try and disqualify my edits then I suppose you should also do so for any editor who identifies themselves as gay. As to the Google hit that you most likely found related to a video game, those were all a lie fabricated by a blogger looking for a "scoop". Again, irrelevant to the issue of the Rick Warren article." But these claims are posted after they wrote this, and more damningly: their remarks are posted immediately below the extensive discussion about COI and puffery in which they did not identify their COI. Their reference to the Google Search is because they are embarassed that we finally discovered their Bio on the church's Public Relations pages as well as the extensive media coverage of relevant controversies in which their Conflict Of Interest has direct bearing on the tendentious edits which provoked those remarks about "apologists, barbarians, scapegoaters, etc" from me; and Rick Warren himself even responded on those public webpages found in the Google search investigating CarverM's heavily publicized affiliations. Furthermore, Manutdglory and CarverM are both trying the same tactic each time their COI is finally proven beyond a shadow of a doubt: they try to throw up the skunk-spray diversion of "No Outing!!" despite the fact that all revelations of personal identity have been through their own admissions and through their own usage of their actual personal names on their User-IDs!

So you are proposing to punitively retroactively sanction me for something i did wrong as a total newbie two months ago, despite the way i was unwittingly goaded in my first interactions with any editors (who, it now turns out, had distinct COI reasons to goad me). This is unbelievable, especially since i repeatedly apologized to the very people who goaded me, and refrained from repeating my newbie mistakes despite their repeated treatment of me with Bad Faith and Non-NPOV and deceitful COI non-disclosure! Where has my mistaken newbie behavior caused harm? Where has my strong unApologetic language (such as on these Discussion pages) ever appeared in some harmful way in any Article page? Why are you so eager to sanction me for something i already learned to fix two months ago, and you haven't even taken the time to respond to where i politely pointed out the opportunities for you to educate yourself about this entire Conflict debacle with my amateur efforts to give Detective diffs and do your Administrative tasks for you? And all the while, i manage to not scream at you for the outrageous unfairness of the whole situation, while you (THF) focus on my newbie mistakes instead of the current COIN where i have no expertise and have never before performed this type of filing. The only reason i'm not asking for an apology from THF is because i can assume they simply have not had the opportunity to witness the nine weeks of frustration which were deceitfully and manipulatively and intentionally foisted upon me. Teledildonix314 ~ ~ _4-1-1 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs, they were made in the past 24 hours, so your claim to be a "newbie" holds little water. It has also been explained to you before that you were not described as having a "radical gay agenda", but that the comment was aimed elsewhere. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Every single one of these diffs on this page is from the last 24 hours. I haven't even looked at anything from January or February. THF (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But your comment here refers to an edit made on February 8 , so you have in fact been looking at weeks-old edits. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Standby Standby folks I have everthing I need except for a response from CarverM placed on his talk page. Administrative actions will occur shortly.--VS 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My comment there referred to a diff that T314 himself provided at COIN, which was the only reason I saw the diff. I was shocked to see T314 using his own CIVIL violations as evidence against someone else, which suggested to me that this was an editor who does not understand CIVIL--and, since one can presume that T314 wants to present his best case forward at COIN, suggested that there were even worse violations lurking. My only comments on this page have been about edits in the last 24 hours. I have no interest in looking beyond that, because just the last 24 hours demonstrates a severe problem. That another editor finds those remarks acceptable wiki-behavior suggests that the lack of CIVIL enforcement is at least as bad as I thought. I have no idea what T314's history has been, so don't know and take no position whether the recent behavior merits a warning or a block, but am concerned that past enforcement has been spotty that we have gotten to this point, and am further concerned that T314 is not remotely abashed or apologetic about his poor behavior. THF (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WP:OUTING going to be enforced at some point? Collect (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dealt with below in its own section.--VS 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

So all are aware, I have topic banned CarverM for 3 months; and blocked Teledildonix for 7 days. I trust I will not have pleased all parties but hopefully those that are actually interested in assisting Firestorm reach some agreement at Rick Warren will see my actions as assisting. I remain ready to provide further help as necessary.--VS 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for taking these administrative actions. Although I don't have my own mop (yet), I can imagine that it would have been a difficult call. As I said, I would support your decision no matter what it was. Hopefully we can all get on with the business of improving the article now. Firestorm 05:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You thanks are appreciated Firestorm - in turn I appreciate you taking the time to attempt mediation and assistance at the Rick Warren page.--VS 05:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you have to.

After he made more attacks on me, I have again responded at taht AN/I thread. I made sure to make no accusations against him, only to ask peopel to observe for themselves. I note that you did nothing to watch him and tell him to focus on the reported case, nor to not keep poking, so I'll let you get caught up now. ThuranX (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• My concern was with your first lack of civility ThuranX - your latest response does not provide me with any further concern. I also understand that you have requested additional input from administrators - however I do not have the capacity to deal with that as well as the 2-3 other complex edit-warring matters I am dealing with elsewhere (the pay is not great for administrators at[REDACTED] and overtime money is absolutely impossible to achieve ;) ) I am sure other administrators will come to the page in due course (and I note that one has come to the discussion already today). I wish you well ThuranX and whilst you continue to make your point without attacking the editor I will have no recourse towards you.--VS 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2MMM and User:Inirapsag

I've told User:Inirapsag that current schedules can't be added per WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is a policy but the user has gone and added it again. Can you deal with them as I don't want to be blocked for "edit warring". Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)  Done--VS 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your signatures often seem to end up as the first words in complaint threats when you place "resolved" tags. If that effect was deliberate, please ignore this message. :) In the case that isn't deliberate, you can avoid that problem by placing your signature immediately following your comment, so that it's inside the resolved tag. For example, {{Resolved|Warnings given, blocked, nothing to see here, blah blah blah. ~~~~}} as opposed to {{Resolved|Warnings given, blocked, nothing to see here, blah blah blah.}} ~~~~ It's probably better explained at Template:Resolved. :) Hope that makes sense (and apologies if this is/was unwanted). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your always welcome here Ncmvocalist - apologies not required. Whilst it was my intention to sign as I did, your message makes it clear as to why the alternate approach is better - and I will use it next time.--VS 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about a block

An editor has raised a question about your block of 208.89.102.31 (talk · contribs) on AN/I. They've been advised to contact you directly, so I'm not sure a response will be needed there, but fyi. -- Vary Talk 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for stopping by Vary. I have read through the ANI question - and don't have much more to say - Gwen Gale (as she usually does) hits the nail on the head pretty well. Anyway I appreciate you letting me know about the thread - and I note the unusual interest by IPromise (of whom others also have brought up interesting comments).--VS 08:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Per your last removal of bad faith comment

I also thinking the same thing. Any article that Wizzzzman has edited you also see the 124.170.xx.xx (iinet) IP range showing up like the National Australia Bank's history shows. ATM I don't have a lot of free time to file a SSP as I'm currently backing-up 50+GB of photographs (No way I'm wanting to lose most of my work again) on top of a few other things. I'll see what I can do in the morning/afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Now dealt with thanks Bidgee.--VS 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think they have returned as Rmarsden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they have edited 3 banking articles and also stalking me. Bidgee (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have left a note and will be watching this editor very closely. Please return here as necessary. --VS 10:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proper Way to Handle Disruptive Editing

VS - I got your note on my talk page. My apology for the error on my part. What is the proper way to handle a user who is following your edits, knows nothing of the subject matter, and just reverts them (in the specific case at hand, they were 95% formatting, cleanup and removal of dead links), with the appearance of it being out of spite for discussions on a completely unrelated page?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You have a variety of ways - the general being a complaint to ANI, the specific being - coming to my talk page or another administrator to register a complaint about disruptive editing. Whether you take the first or the second you should come with clear, specific facts and diffs that immediately assist me/us the edits you question; without any unnecessary waffle. Of these two options I recommend coming to my talk page (somewhat to my personal concern considering the constant bickering that is going on at these three or four pages) because as you will have seen I have absolutely no interest in those articles and I currently appear to be the main/only administrator watching all editors and pages at this time. Further as the history shows, I am also completely willing to give any editor at these pages a short or long holiday if called for - because in my experience these things will eventually die down if all editors know that they are on a final warning and just try their best to deal with their personal biases and beliefs through discussion.--VS 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My typo in an AIV

How embarrassing, two typos in one simple but important posting! I left the last digit off the current IP. It should have been 61.69.3.106 along with 61.69.25.208. My apologies for causing you to have to chase me on this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hey no problems - as you can see I found the right IP and acted accordingly. Thanks for stopping by to let me know you read my message. Cheers.--VS 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to think SSP?

I believed that User:S11.1 and User:Octyplay could be same editor (who edits on the 190.xx.xx.xx range). Maybe something to watch? BTW thanks for dealing with the other SSP. :) Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the editing pattern of these two (meant to tell you earlier) and yes they appear to likely be the same editors.--VS 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thought so. Thanks for taking a look. I'll watch them for now but once there is a stronger case I'll go and report to SSP (or what ever it's now called :S). Off topic Whats your thoughts on this graph? Is the gradient ect ok? I'll like to improve on it but I can't think of anything. :( I'll rather wait for feedback before I get carried away making more for other locations. Bidgee (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Add User:Ju98 5 to that list now. Seems to have a 1919 POV. They just don't get it that Avianca‎ was founded in 1940 (which is clearly sourced with in the article). Bidgee (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • This last one seems a bit different in terms of overall editing contents but will keep on my list for now.--VS 06:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Ju98 5 re-added it. I also left a comment on User:Nicop (Usurp)'s talk page after they left a comment on my page. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit and locked down the article until consensus is formed. I have invited interested parties to append their comments under my new section header.--VS 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heatwave

Hey I like that - colour cooler to hot works well - easier to see graph and will work well as a thumb(ish) size. Thoughts ... (1) Maybe month detail under the place name ie: in this case Jan-Feb 2009; (2) name change to include the words min & max; (3) more location detail eg: are we talking about the BOM site at the airport in this case, middle of town etc.... just thoughts but hope they might be helpful.--VS 11:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Something like this? or is it too busy? Bidgee (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not too busy in my view - looks great and gives all needed information at a glance.--VS 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok cool, It's nice to have someone point out some ideas to make it's a little better. :) Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • A pleasure - do you have plans for other heatwave history (eg Adelaide) and will you put them on the article pages?--VS 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm planning on making more images for other locations (Will talk time as it's time consuming work) but also plan to start on the history of heatwaves in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of user talk page comments

I did not know that. Thanks for the posting the the bisket's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• My pleasure - thanks for stopping by. Although I note that Cyclonebisket seems to take rejection of his comments not so amicably.--VS 03:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (EC)Nice example of being disruptive by trying to prove a point. I'm sure VirtualSteve doesn't care about Cyclonebiskit removing the comment but to use "lets see how you like it" is personal (IE:Stirring), uncivil and disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Apparently he's taking a Wiki-break, so let's hope that does some good. Poor Steve having to play Daddy to grumpy Wikipedian's really doesn't bode well for humanity in general... Scarian 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Scarian, no one asked you, so back out of this. I've honestly done nothing wrong, Bidgee's claim of harassment was highly uncalled for as I originally tried to have a civil conversation about the use of local times and UTC in the AUS article. Being I'm extremely frustrated IRL and I really don't need pointless controversies like this, anything can and/or will set me off, as shown above. Also, a note about the "Daddy" thing, Steve is playing daddy for Bidgee as she keep whining to him about things that can be easily talked over in a civil manner and really don't need to be brought to an admin. Cyclonebiskit 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Also please note that Bidgee still hasnt responded to my question on the Australain WP noticeboard Jason Rees (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Cyclonebiskit - anyone can get frustrated in real-life and most of us will understand that and even have the good grace to allow you time to reconsider any churlish actions as detailed above. Indeed when I saw you go on an immediate wikibreak I thought perhaps you were going to sort out other things and thoughts and come back refreshed. That said, you are mistaken if you think you have done nothing wrong, although I will accept that you have done nothing wrong on purpose - which did occur when you returned comments at Bidgee's talk page that he (not a she) removed. For that a simple comment along the lines of Sorry I didn't know an editor could remove comments from their talk page without responding would have sufficed to calm the situation down - rather than a comment of see how you like it when I tried to inform you of the facts of such communication. Inflaming things here again by coming back for another bite at the cherry regarding the original incident that has upset you does not exclude the fact that Bidgee is entitled to remove most comments whenever he feels like it - do you understand what I mean? Also just to be clear Scarian (as are most editors) is welcome here at any time or at the very least until I ask him to move away nothing to see - it is after all my talk page. I would appreciate your further thoughts on this if you feel it within yourself to accept that my initial advice to you was in fact correct.

@ Jason Rees - happy you decided to stop by but quite frankly I am not sure what you are referring to - more importantly does your question belong here or at Bidgee's page?--VS 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To Cyclonebiskit. Thank you for not assuming good faith and again insult me. Also I made it a pointless controversy? I'm not the one stalling on not adding local time to have it along with UTC time in Australian based articles. It's not like I'm only just wanting local time and no UTC time.

To Jason Rees. Has it come to you that I'm busy and haven't seen your comment (I'm still yet to read it and will later)? It's pointless bring that up on another users talk page. Bidgee (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best that the two of you stop clawing at each other. CB, you go that way ←. Bidgee, you go that way →. Problem solved. :) –Juliancolton 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks JC - it seems that CB has taken a very positive step here so things are already looking a little better.--VS 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A mini essay

• Scarian, there certainly are a lot of highly emotional wikipedians around at the moment so I just try and do the job I get paid so handsomely for! I even have my own administrator's essay on it. Not long, soapy or wordy ... it goes like this .... under all circumstances be Polite, Helpful, Unattached and Kind = WP:PHUK - end of essay.--VS 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

triggerhappy ?

Hello there - you don't think you've been a little triggerhappy by blocking me ? Your allegation was "misleading edit" which I vehemently deny. I put up to new links to an article, one of which was a link to "youtube" which was taken off due to a rule I wasn't aware. Then, I went back in and added the non-youtube again. All these edits were done in good faith which I think would be obvious to a reasonable person actually comparing edits. Did you really look at them ? Thanks 124.170.178.60 (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I have no idea what edits you are referring to - who are you, what pages are you relating to? If you can let me know I can revisit the situation.--VS 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• Further to my above comment I have just reviewed the last 500 blocks I have made (totalling over the past 3 months and none have an allegation - reason for blocking as "misleading edit". Further information will be of assistance.--VS 09:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's the IP (See: Re:Per your last removal of bad faith comment) who edits National Australia Bank (history). and this would be the block no doubt. ;) Bidgee (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks Bidgee - okay so another sock of Wizzzzman (and as I expected they were not blocked for misleading edit by me) - I will add it to the list. Also having looked at the NAB history do you concur with the last edits by 124.170.224.210 or should be they be rolled back?--VS 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. I partly reverted the edits since I couldn't find anything supporting the edit. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes already noted Bidgee - appreciate your assistance.--VS 10:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
          • No problem. :) Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting not started

Voting has not started. Your votes has been removed. Please read the directions. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Argh sorry - missed that.--VS 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor, if you have the time

I normally wouldn't ask, but I've tagged Be The Reformation for deletion four times now, and the creator keeps removing them. I'm tired of checking every few minutes to see if the tag is still there, so if you have a chance could you go by and take a look at it? I've tagged it as an A7, but I'm fairly sure it would also meet G11 without a problem. Templarion (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it gets taken care of in the same minute as I ask you. That's how my luck goes. Anyway, cheers Templarion (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Would've loved to have helped - but that bloody PMDrive1061 ;) beat me to it - damn I hate more efficient administrators than me. I'll have another look see from time to time to see if the editor attempts to recreate.--VS 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on it too. Thanks anyway! Templarion 愛 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've salted it! Man, I'm doing all of Steve's work today! He's going to be very bored when he comes back online. Scarian 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a bloody winner Pat - thanks.--VS 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensing breach, What can I do?

This website is using my image (As a header and banner) without any attribution nor is it appropriately distribute (IE: It's a CC-BY-SA licensed photograph). I've emailed them a few days ago and they've read the email but have failed to fix the issue nor reply. So you know of any other means to get them to appropriately attribute the image or force them to remove it since they have made the licensing conditions invaild since they breached the terms which is clearly stated on the image page? Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a legal problem that would require you to contact a solicitor (or lawyer, if you're a yank!) to get that sorted out. But I know that on Misplaced Pages, if a site is using material and not citing it under GFDL, then I think at least 2-3 notices are issued before contacting a legal representative. But please note, I may not know what I am talking about and I may be very wrong. So please do take what I have written with a pinch of salt, or, preferably, don't take it at all ;-) Scarian 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, seek advice from WP:IMAGE. But be aware that some people can get mightily stiff when it comes to legal questions. Scarian 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee - Scarian's response is helpful (despite his shyness at saying so) - but I will also reply to your email with another strategy that I have already implemented on behalf of image owners. --VS 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both Scarian and VS for you help. I'll keep you updated if anything changes. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like your idea worked VS. ;) Thanks for that, I owe you a beer or something! Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped Bidgee, but if I see you sitting at a bar somewhere and you get a tap on the shoulder and a hello then yep your shout first... File:Icon beer.gif--VS 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I rarely go to the pub! :P Well I'm looking at riding to Uranquinty tomorrow but yet to pick the route and see if it's smokey (If it's like today I'll do it) plus if I'm in the "mood". Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ended up going today to the Uranquinty but I'm paying for it now (sun burnt and sore). One image uploaded is the power station. oh also the Dunns road has some bad Corrugations and the 3 hills were killers.Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Also sad to see a lot of bare paddocks and dry dams. Bidgee (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - sorry I missed this activity somehow. Nice additional pics tho.--VS 09:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Males

Hi. Does this constitute further disruptive behaviour that you were talking about? BalkanFever 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• No - after his block he can say/ask these type of things - but if he should return to any page and disrupt via edits would you please come back and show me those diffs.--VS 20:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

unjustified block

I dont follow you: first you block me for fixing an edit error of mine (labelled as "misleading edit"), then when i raise this (after the block expired) !) you block me again for "block evasion". maybe there's something i dont get here but[REDACTED] is meant to be an open system.... 124.170.178.60 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet evasion is blockable at this project. I'm happy to keep blocking and especially so when you are continuing to be disruptive Wizzzzman. Thanks for stopping by.--VS 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

my talk

Hey again, thanks for the help. Can you unprotect or semiprotect my talkpage? cheers, Enigma 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done--VS 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets

Can you indef block this and this? Thanks, Enigma 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the information.--VS 05:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Look at his profession and then at the collapsed box. Advertising an NN much? I remember I've dealt with these before by just deleting the whole thing, but what would you recommend? Scarian 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah, never mind. I checked it out more and the guy's article had been deleted so he thought he could bypass inclusion requirements. Also turns out he's an image thief; but he probably doesn't know the whole deal around that so I explained it to him. Scarian 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

G'day Pat, What you did is what I would have done too. Interesting that inclusionist put it up on his user page? Perhaps a sandbox page but why user page I wonder?--VS 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it before with kids' garage bands... they plug it on their userpage and say to their friends: "Hey! We've got an article!" - Another time this guy pasted months worth of blog postings to get additional viewers from the Wiki... They all think they're cashing in on Misplaced Pages's apparent giant traffic but pfft... Everyone knows these are the only articles that get traffic! Scarian 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha - that's right only because they get the spelling incorrect (or so they say) and get side tracked by all the things they can't get elsewhere and they can still tell their mom that they are only looking up something important on wikipedia.--VS 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor (broadcaster)

Now reported in the Herald Sun as a rumour only. Why people would think it appropriate to paste this on a bio when nothing but conjecture is known escapes me. The man has a family. Thanks for the semi-protect. -- Mattinbgn\ 09:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed Matt - some people are a bit too keen. Also I have linked Steels Creek - I think this may be the place but I am a bit unsure (it is very close to Kingslake).--VS 09:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor

Should we add that Brian Naylor is currently missing? . Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes mate - with that reference and besides I trust you to do so with appropriate wording. Go for it.--VS 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • PS If you do it I can stand back as an uninvolved admin and deal with problems as necessary.--VS 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I've added it to the article (Brian Naylor (broadcaster)). Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep noted my friend; and also noted other helpful comments by new editors at the talk page. I think I will leave the protection run its 6 hour course though and hopefully the fact of this will be cleared up by then.--VS 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • • Noted that. Lets hope it's good news from now on but I somehow doubt it. Also happy that the "reported" fire on Willans Hill was controlled (Was on the crawl on WIN yet RFS had nothing) and the fire at Tarcutta is also under control. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes I know - always eerie reading about fires etc and smelling it in the air so close - you can't help but go outside every 10 minutes to see if there is anything more than smoke recoloring the sun.--VS 10:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Naylor and his wife's death now confirmed. Has been adjusted on the page - very sad regarding all victims including Brian and Moiree.--VS 10:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Very sad indeed. What makes me heart broken is seeing vandals using the article for there own kicks. I'm off to try and get some sleep since I've been up for the past 2 days. Bidgee (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You go get some Bidgee - I'll maintain as much watch as I can over today. I dealt immediately with the latest vandal (as you may have seen). Sleep well.--VS 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Blue

Can you looking into the removal of content at Virgin Blue? Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done R & P'd for 3 days - Cheers.--VS 10:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reality Check, please

If you don't mind, please take a look at Oxted School article and make sure that I'm not crazy. In my view, the other editor is trying to force in a reference to a non-notable game that is held in one of the buildings. There's at least one other editor that disagrees, so I feel a little better, but I would always appreciate a third opinion to make sure I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. Templarion 愛 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're fine. It's just some student trying to write something that him and his friends can guffaw about. By the way, the article suffers from strong instances of POV. And unless someone can find sources for the fire; I wouldn't write about it. Scarian 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Pat. Was just about to get to this message but was a bit caught up with the information regarding fires at this part of the world.--VS 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course. Are you alright, mate? I hope you, your family, and everyone you know is safe and well, and I hope everyone else caught up in this pulls through. And if it really was arson, I really hope they catch the buggers. Terrible stuff. Scarian 12:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near the fires Pat thanks for your concern. Two of my sisters are close but they're fine. Plenty of smoke in the south east of Australia to keep us a little alert but otherwise no worries. No-one is yet sure about arson lit fires, quite possible for one or two, others could also be the result of a variety of things, cigarette butts thrown out of a car/truck; lightning strikes; sun spotting through broken glass etc. A real tragedy however and we are all waiting and hoping for the escalating numbers of deaths to cease. Thanks for your kind thoughts.--VS 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

While I think the block was just fine, I would like to point out the user has asked you to reconsider. Good day. Chillum 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers Chillum, have visited and left a comment for their action. Best wishes.--VS 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin

Can you please do something more than warn him? He is in infuriatingly uncivil on the talk page. View this diff from my last comment to his: . Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly refused to take a constructive approach to the material he simply wants to remove. I have asked him many times to enter a dialog as to how it could be made more to his acceptance and his response is basically to remove it. It is rather frustrating to deal with someone who simply wants to remove rather than improve.

I have just reported him for 3RR violation. --spin (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin, I've told you what needs to be done with it to make it acceptable, and you've taken no measures to do it. You want it included, the burden is on you to make it more than just your reading of the primary sources. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems this matter has been dealt with by William M Connelly whilst I was asleep; thank you William. For what it is worth I would have blocked also following your information above. Please come back here again as necessary - if I am on-line I will be happy to assist.--VS 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog does not eat dog

I provided a response on my discussion page. My complaint for abuse of power by the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise concerns his first blocking for "tendentious editing". This act, which I dispute, becomes a reason for my post disadvantaged in the situation.--Males (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• What in heavens name does dog not eat dog mean here?--VS 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • On a closer inspection you are clearly referring to Future Perfect at Sunrise. Look closely at your own block Males - whilst you do not agree with it, three separate administrators did agree with that action. You then returned to edit in the same way and were re-blocked, with further complaints but no request to be unblocked. I am not going to sit around whilst you refer to other editors as dogs and I have blocked you accordingly. Please read this detail about not attacking other editors.--VS 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, but for context, this is an old proverb that means that even low-life dogs will protect other low-life dogs. WikiProverbs page, answers.com page. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Jack - thats the general impression I had hence my concern.--VS 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me then. I didn't want you to think it was a mistranslation or something. Using standard phrases to attack someone is still an attack, and I don't think this phrase is ever used to describe someone you held in any degree of respect. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your notification. In fairness, I wouldn't have held that expression against him. It's a somewhat clumsy translation of a foreign proverb, nothing more. I can't just now think of an English equivalent (In German we would say: "A crow won't put out another crow's eye"), simply meaning: people of the same group will stick together and not hurt each other even if they are in the wrong. I don't feel it is "likening me to a dog", and personally I don't feel insulted by it. Right or wrong, he means to criticise us admins for cliquishly defending each other's decisions. That's okay with me. – Personally, as far as I'm concerned, I would have no objections to seeing this block lifted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your return Fut.Perf. Given you are the offended party and have no objections I will lift the block. Best wishes.--VS 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

VS, I didn't expect that you will take this as insult. Actually, the first "dog" in the proverb were you and I really want to stress that I don't want to insult you or somebody else. My disagreements are generally in connection with politics of overconfide between some administrators. This English proverb describes the situation and for me is clearly that man who used it do not call "dog" anybody in the literal sense. So, I would like to ask for more confide to myself. I am not a "criminal" just because I am disappointed and keep criticizing. Regards, --Males (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• As per your talk page I agree - tolerance means to be able to accept disagreement. Wise words for you to consider also when people have a disagreement with your edits. As for the proverb can I suggest that you write more carefully because it seems I and others at my talk page initially also came to the conclusion that "dog" appeared to be a slur reference towards other editors - my point being the English language is the medium used at this project to convey messages to others and if it is necessary for you to come back later to explain what you meant then you probably didn't make the best choice of words in the first instance. Make sense?--VS 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed here. Regards,--Males (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doughney

I saw you tell someone on this page that they could bring a dispute to you. I'm inexperienced at this but could you help me or at least give me some advice with the following problem?

An editor named Mike Doughney has contributed to an article an undone 5 edits that I spent weeks researching. He made the following claim for undoing the edit,"07:32, 11 February 2009 Mike Doughney (Talk | contribs) (8,184 bytes) (Restoring verified material with citations to third parties in lieu of addition of self-published material from the article's subject)"

He undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers. He says that random people like someone named G Richard Fisher are critical of Stewart, so what. Who is that guy, I guess it is like saying Joe the plumber is critical of Barack Obama. He added the name of some defrocked minister "VW Grant," trying to link him somehow to Stewart, but I can't find any link between the two except that they are both on TV. He took out a book Stewart wrote from the section, "Books by Stewart." I just reinserted the book "Only Believe," back into that section. The book is not self published It was authored by the subject, but published by an independent publisher well respected in the Christian community, ref(Destiny Image), Don Stewart, Only Believe Destiny Image P.O. Box 310 Shippensburg, PA 17257-0310 (1999) ISBN 156043340X. I also referenced Stewart's web site to support the point I was making.

The fact is that the article he is using as a reference from a Dallas paper, doesn't support the claims he is making that Stewart didn't write his letters about a Green Prayer cloth, (which Stewart is kind of famous for right now). The article just says that Stewart and a lot of other ministers hired this guy Ewing to write some fund raising letters for them. More importantly Stewart's prayer cloths aren't mail pieces anyway, they are give a ways on his web-site and TV show and I referenced Stewart's web-site to prove this. All this has been laid out on the discussion page for about a week with no objection. Doughney just jumped in and made these edits without discussion.

I'm just learning Misplaced Pages and am using this site to learn on, because it is such an obvious smear piece. Many of the articles in this piece are misquoted and or are only referenced with the negative things they say about Stewart, especially the things taken directly from the Trinity Foundation web-site. In the section "What Misplaced Pages is not,” it says something about people using Misplaced Pages as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like.

I learned about Stewart by reading the Only Believe Book. I'm doing a book on healing evangelists myself and this is the definitive one on the subject to date. Like I said I'm new here so maybe I'm wrong, but this just doesn't seem right. I could correct a lot of this article, but I am taking it slow to let others give their input. However, I don't like to see Misplaced Pages used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual. The guy,(Stewart), actually has some historical significance being linked to AA Allen, Mahalia Jackson, and the civil rights movement in the 60’s & 70’s, but none of that is in the article. I would appreciate some help here, I really enjoy Misplaced Pages and hope I can be of some use, thanksHarvest09 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having some difficulty with regards your fifth paragraph starting with the words I'm just learning Misplaced Pages and am using this site to learn on, because it is such an obvious smear piece because your interest seems to display more than just a random educational choice. That said (and no matter where your interests lie) I see that you have returned the book reference into the article. In terms of then what you say are smears, could you go to the talk page of the article and detail (in simple bullet format) what sentences/words you believe are incorrect and why. Then detail what you wish to change those sentences to say and why. Come back here and leave me a note and I will monitor the reaction to your post.--VS 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks I'll do that. It's not random, I read this guy's book and it was very well done, but I guess I was kind of shocked when I saw his page. There are many others much more significant than Stewart, in the faith healing world and if he gets this kind of treatment I didn't want to edit their pages because it might draw this kind of responce and I wouldn't know how to handle it. This seems to be a good experience for me. As to listing the information it will take a few days. Many of the articles sited in the Stewart piece you have to go to a service and pay for them, but I'll begin the process. ThanksHarvest09 (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I contacted the Stewart office and told them that they should have someone look into this and have them contribute. I interviewed people there last summer researching my book and got a lot of information on their history and charity work especially from their food bank people. Hopefully they will get involved. They said they have tried to do things in the past, but basically they didn’t have the time to learn the nuances of Misplaced Pages and gave up. They said a lot of the negative articles come from a take over attempt of the organization by a disgruntled former board member, dating back to 1987, (and I have found that indicated in many of the news articles). A lot of what I have on the subject would probably be original research, but misquotes and one sided use of the articles are something I’d like to learn how to correct anyway. So, give me a couple of days to put it together and I’ll post it on the discussion page. I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things. I hope I’m getting better at this and am having a lot of fun learning Misplaced Pages (like using bullets). Thanks Harvest09 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I should indent the bullets each time, but when I use the tab it sends me to the next section on the page? I didn't see bullets in the tutorials I'm looking at? Harvest09 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hi Steve, Scientizzle and I had been discussing my topic ban on his/her talkpage. He has not responded to my message of 5 Feb, probably for reasons he stated earlier, despite my explanation. I'd be very grateful for your input again, following your advice of December. I think I can make a good contribution in the topic ban area and hope to be able to do so. Mccready (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Can you give me a diff pointer to where your topic ban occurred please?--VS 22:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Best summary is by Scientizzle here, then his/her acknowledgement that block log relied on had questionable entries and "didn't weigh much". Scientizzle also said "blocks in 2006 don't much concern me". Since many cited this old questionable block log as their reason for voting I said the basis for the discussion was now seriously undermined. The simple question is why not lift the ban which is due to be lifted in May anyway and reinstate it if necessary. This started by my admittedly poor approach being a lone editor trying to prevent a group of acupuncturists dominating the page. I have been a strong science editor all along and have suffered the usual consequences. Hoping the answer to the simple question may short circuit a lot of time and drama. I'd rather be doing constructive editing than this, as I'm sure you would. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'll be back on this a little later Mccready as it will require a bit of time and consideration. Stay tuned, I will do my best to get back to you as soon as possible.--VS 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. To save you a lot of time perhaps it might be easier for you to agree boldly that lifting the topic ban and reinstating if needed might be more economical. My feeling is that the community would not blame you if you were wrong. It seems a sensible risk. I can only assure you of my cooperation and ask you to Assume Good Faith. On numerous occasions the AGF principle has been denied me and I have virtually been called a liar. In particular I remember discovering the crime of canvassing. When I joined[REDACTED] the crime didn't exist and when I was told I had committed it I had no idea if was a crime, despite what my accusers said. I could go on but want to get back to editing which I enjoy. PS People call me Kevin (and do you know how I can change my signature block to reflect this?)Mccready (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of material here to assimilate. Some comments:

• I don't think it would be appropriate for any admin to lift this without discussion at AN/I and clear community agreement that the topic ban is no longer necessary. VS himself closed the most recent AN/I discussion with the summary "Consensus clearly shows topic ban will not be lifted despite ardent attempts at intervention. This thread has no where else to go so archiving for posterity.--VS talk 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)".
• Prior to that discussion, Mccready violated the topic ban with an IP edit. A similar episode in May 2008 was inconclusive. (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mccready)
• The topic ban on acupuncture and chiropractic is not "due to be lifted in May anyway", as Mccready suggested above. It is an indefinite topic ban. What expires in May is a general pseudoscience and alt-med probation, according to the above link.
• During the original topic ban discussion (see also preceding discussion here) there was a block for canvassing.
• Mccready dismissed a block for 3RR with a personal attack on the blocking admin ("trigger happy MastCell"). That admin is not known for rashness, and the block appears sound.

Given the facts above, I think it would be inappropriate to lift the topic ban right now. Even assuming the best of intentions, in practice Mccready has repeatedly fallen into disruptive/tendentious editing and other patterns that have eroded the community's trust.

The pseudoscience and alt-med probation expires in May. Although Mccready has not used the probationary period to use talk pages in those areas, he now will be able to edit them fully (with the exception of the acupuncture and chiropractic topic ban areas). That will provide a venue for Mccready to rebuild the community's trust in his ability to work productively with editors that he has major disagreements with. Just my 2 cents, and my sincere best wishes. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Methinks the style and content of Middle 8 seem a tad familiar. A checkuser might be revealing (his third username in almost as many weeks?). In any case the user misses the point about the block log, and can't logically argue my contributions since the incident (almost a year ago was it?) have not been valuable. Ah but perhaps there's an agenda. The drama is wearing thin, as is the constant refrain from what looks like a single user to prove myself. Kevin McCready (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your contributions outside the topic ban areas have been good. It's your contributions within said areas that worry me. Your block log speaks for itself, and I do not accept your argument that it should not weigh. Sorry you see fit to question my motives; please AGF and recall WP:NPA. --Middle 8 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my argument alone. The admin who decided the community thought a ban was appropriate and closed the discussion (while I was blocked if I remember correctly) accepts the block log is an inaccurate record of my performance. Funny that your new account focuses on acupuncture and pseudoscience. As a hypothetical, what do you think of a user who creates multiple accounts after their errors and biases are pointed out? Perhaps you'd like to reply on your talkpage as the question may not be relevant to Steve. I do of course AGF, just like you are doing on insisting the topic ban remain. Kevin McCready (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If I were topic-banned and wanted not to be, one of the things I wouldn't do is attack or make insinuations about editors concerned about my behavior. My initial comment above enumerated several relevant points, and you ignored them all and instead attacked me. I expected that. That's your MO when you have strong disagreements with editors. That's part of why the topic ban exists. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding - I had some major computer malfunctions that kept me off-line. I have had the chance to consider the situation of your topic ban and your request that I be BOLD and revoke that ban. I am not going to agree to that request at this time for the following reasons:

1. Your discussion on the same topic with Scientizzle only about 1 month ago ended in part here with his comment that: Mccready's topic ban is valid and should stand. Given the general evidence and tone of the community, I think it would be inappropriate (too bold) to overturn it.'
2. I also think that an action by a single administrator (in this case myself) would be too bold.
3. That only leaves (1) an action prefaced by discussion within the community which showed a consensus (by several administrators and editors in good standing) that your topic ban should be lifted - I note that you have tried that already without success, or
4. (as detailed in the discussion detailed here) (2) you are left with the option of appealing to Arbcom. However, with respect such an appeal is unlikely to succeed before May 7th.

Given all of the facts I am of the same opinion today that Scientizzle was on January 13, 2009 where he indicated that a few solid months of quality editing demonstrate a responsiveness to community concerns One month is all that has passed at this time and so it is towards that goal that I request you turn your attention. My best wishes and good luck. --VS 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. You don't appear to have considered the fact that the block log was relied upon heavily by the blocker and the "community" (this is the point where Scientizzle and I left off). Given that the block log is now said to weigh little, the decision is now substantially undermined. I also gathered from your comments in December that you were inclined to a different point of view at that time. Would appreciate your response. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, It's been about a week since I drew this to your attention. I know you've been busy but would appreciate your response. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So sorry Kevin - didn't pick up your previous post in the rush of activity at my page lately. Thank you for stopping by and pointing out your call for response again. I can (and will only) add that whilst I understand your desires I do not on reflection of the whole situation - especially given the comments by others above; your responses, and the previous discussions by others I have already referred to above differ in total with the concept that now is not the time to boldly undo your topic ban. That said I have been watching your work - your intention to assist the project etc - including the call for independent consideration by Teledildonix on your page in the past day or two (although I must admit I chuckled with some false personal flattery at your interesting generalisation - not taken badly at all by me I might just hasten to add - that admins tend to be geeky young people. Of course the chuckle came because I am neither young nor geeky (although I wish I was a little more of both at times). Your time will come Kevin hang in there, Best wishes.--VS 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Thanks Steve, very sweet of you, but speaking of generalisations you didn't quite address the issue. Scientizzle and I got to the point where he agreed to be the first admin to ever look at my block log objectively. After he did so he agreed that some blocks were inappropriate. Because the ban decision and comments of the community were explicitly based on the block log (a case of give a dog a bad name) this calls into question the decision itself. ie most people (orchestrating altmeders not the least) who supported the ban, explicitly pointed to the block log which had been bandied about without anyone looking at it properly (despite my pleas). After we got to that point Scientizzle closed commununication. I then returned to you. I would like you to point out if my logic is incorrect. Meanwhile I'd be grateful if you could remove the acupuncture link from Sciatica or give me permission to discuss it. The link is of very low quality and contradicts the much better reference in the top. Thanks again. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have nothing more to say Kevin and sorry but no I will not remove the acupuncture link because as soon as I do (and then later act as an Admin) I will be accused of non-neutrality. Sit back and someone else will get that link if they also think it should be gone.--VS 09:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case it appears we have a difference of opinion and perhaps someone else you recommend could look at it. I have presented the evidence and you appear not to have acknowledged the logical sequence. Looking forward to your suggestion as to where we go from here. On the Sciatica page, would you mind if I discussed it on that talkpage? Kevin McCready (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• It will serve you well (better?) if in your effort to continue to get the last word that you attempted to do so without displaying any loss of good faith towards me now that I have chosen to not back your proposal; detachment is the word I seem to recall used elsewhere? In terms of your final question ... and as previously suggested above and elsewhere ... you can approach Arbcom. --VS 11:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Steve, let's be very clear about this. I don't know why you assume that I am displaying loss of good faith (bad faith?) towards you. I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean. If it is a misunderstanding I'm sure we can clear it up. All I have requested is that you proceed via logical steps. I've asked you why my logic may be flawed and you have not responded to that request.Kevin McCready (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Kevin - let me be even clearer; bad faith? well your words, I have presented the evidence and you appear not to have acknowledged the logical sequence belittles the effort I have put in coming to grips with your situation and consider why I should go against a number of other members of the community and remove your topic ban. I did not (as you are well aware) jump to early conclusions on that question, indeed you need to try and understand that your statement now that I have not paid close enough attention to your situation is far from the truth. I don't know if you will be able to accept that fact but let me be blunt and say this situation is not about logic it is about whether I believe you should be given early release (as opposed to so many others who do not) and on full consideration of your case, your edits above, including your most recent edits in the past couple of days, I do not. Now please stop spoiling for a fight with me - move on, put in a reverse charge call through to Arbcom or do something else that pleases you at this damn big project. From my perspective I have nothing more to say about the situation at this time.--VS 11:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you appear to be angry about this and request you to wait a few days before responding. I have to disagree with you. It is indeed about logic. The logic is this. 1. The ban was placed after many editors cited the "bad" block log. 2. Scientizzle was the first admin to examine the block log (other admins refused). 3. He/she concluded it wasn't as bad as presented. 4. Therefore the arguments presented for the ban, since they were primarily grounded in the "bad" block log, and people quoting it as their reason, fail. It is logical. I have not asked you to "believe" (your word) anything. I have simply asked you to follow the logic and you have refused. I am not spoiling for a fight and am disappointed that you have assumed so.Kevin McCready (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with Don Stewart (preacher) article

I found the bullet thing it’s on the “Help: Formatting,” page. I just posted the first installment of what I think we should eliminate and include; on the Don Stewart (preacher) discussion page under; “Developing a consensus for the article and correcting mistakes.” Sorry this took so long, but I first tried to do the whole thing and it was just too much. I also had to stop to do my taxes and help college boy with his FAFSA. Do you have any college kids in the family? Its’ tough out there. They have a joke, “The good thing about FAFSA is you get your taxes done early, but the bad thing about FAFSA is you have to do your taxes early!” Think that’s NPOV? Take a look when you get a chance and let us know what you think? Thanks,Harvest09 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well done. I prefer to stay neutral in terms of the content itself so that I can act as an administrator if required. I suggest that you wait a day or two to see if you get replies and comments from fellow editors first. Please come back here mid-week to remind me and I will provide you with some further advice at that time.--VS 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to bother but there is something I think some administrator should look at on the bottom of the Stewart discussion page. I left a "note to administrator" about a recently added paragraph to the article; it is on a very controversial subject I know something about since it will be in my book. But this will be a real digression from what we are working on now if left and it could very well be libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvest09 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have reverted a portion of the recent edits to remove this area of concern and also left a message in the edit summary as to my reasons for reverting (administratively). Good luck with your discussions.--VS 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, shortly after leaving the message for administrative help my computer was hit with a virus making it impossible for me to access the internet. We are okay now, but my son-in-law isn't happy. Not sure what happened. Have a good one I'm going to go slow with this. I'll try to remember the edit summary. Harvest09 (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • VirtualSteve, Harvest09 is a WP:SPA who's only edits have been to remove material from an article based on misunderstanding of policy. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm studying Misplaced Pages a lot now and appreciate everyone's help. I asked for the removal of an edit by BBiiis08, because it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved, when, how, and why. I think most people would agree that when these kind of things are written about and implied they have something to do with a living person they should be carefully worded and thoroughly discussed, if they are used at all. Harvest09 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I see the paragraph referred to above was reinserted into the article. Harvest09 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • So you are claming the racial driven riots didn't occur? If you think something isn't clear in the article then adjust the wording don't remove it. The article accurately reflects reports in the press about "the leadership of the compound and began professing what locals said was an anti-white doctrine." Or what about "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981 on the riots? BBiiis08 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Reverted back to Steve's version. (Harvest, consider using a colon to indent your comments ;-) Scarian 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Did you bother reading Harvest09's objections? That is not a justifiable reason to exclude material. Especially considering that there is so many WP:RS on the riots over the last 20 years. Including this recent account (from this month) in the news from police published this month and a book about the riots. He wants other sources left out, such as Stewart's home town paper, excluded claiming google news archives "is an old photocopy that can be questioned." WP:V is NOT about "truth," but about RS. This WP:SPA has not raised any substantive issue or factual error from any of these sources. Further, there are multiple sources in the article. This user has just been trying to remove negative information from the article (for example, see Harvest09's first ever edit).BBiiis08 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
        • There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner. Can someone who understands[REDACTED] policy explain why is such an important event is being excluded? BBiiis08 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
          • The lack of dialogue between the people who reverted this left me frustrated and I reported this at Administrators' noticeboard. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • We aren't getting any discussion from BBiiis08 on the article discussion page before he inserts edits. His only discussion is criticism of my concerns about WP-V, RS, and NPOV on the things he has already edited. I'm confused about what point he is trying to make about Stewart when he keeps inserting this paragraph into the article. I'm also concerned that his only edits are portraying Stewart as some kind of crook with nothing else to say about him. I think the seriousness of the paragraph removed by administrators should be very carefully worded; if it is used at all. The paragraph he wants to insert doesn't make a number of things clear. I guess we could get into it now, but it is kind of frustrating, because we had started discussing something totally different and this has become a diversion. There is so much there I haven't had time to read all the articles, but I haven't seen Stewart mentioned as a major player in these events. Sorry this has become such a bother. Harvest09 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • My apologies to all for the delay in responding - I have had some computer malfunctions for the past 2 days. In a general sense the raising of this matter at ANI is helpful although BBiiis08 appears at this stage to be jumping to some unfair conclusions about your involvement Harvest09. I don't personally think that there is any problem with starting of as Single Purpose Account providing your edits are useful and follow procedure. The fact that you are trying to discuss this matter at the article's talk page is a good sign at this time and I suggest that you continue that process. I will also go to the ANI page and make similar comments.--VS 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Is writing a book on the subject/Stewart a WP:COI? BBiiis08 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
          • No it isn't, it just shows a strong interest in the subject. Also COI guidelines do not immediately revoke an editors right to edit an article - it is the content etc of what is being written that does that (from a COI perspective). Remember Harvest09 is asking questions on the talk page - not attempting to blugeon his way through with edits.--VS 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
            • The problem is he isn't just asking questions. He has said he doubts the validity of the newspaper sources from google and thus wants to exclude that information-- which just happens to be anything that is negative. His misunderstandings are frustrating and not helpful to the article. Could you please help him understand policy? BBiiis08 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Policy is complex here as you know. Learning policy for a new user (as opposed to a vandal) is about being bold (a first premise) and editing, all the while being gently prodded by other good users. This user is asking questions, you are responding, others are responding at the ANI thread you started, and of course he is reading this page. One of two things will happen as it always does - either (a) he will become a good user because he reads the educational comments of all others (and that works best if we AGF - a second premis) thereby fully assisting the project with thoughful, neutral point of view edits, or alternatively we will discover that he is wasting our time at which point the normal process of preventative action will take place. I am hoping that the first of these will occur. I'd ask you to help for a reasonable amount of time or until it is simply impossible to continue to assume good faith. Do this and you are more likely to have an interested colleague at this project to work with you on this and similar articles. I hope you agree?--VS 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you. Are my WP-V and RS questions about Fisher / Trinity out of line? Before I edit, I'd like to know where that stands. I'm reading everywhere and I saw on a page that it had been ruled as not being usable as a reference. It also appears to me that sometime recently BBiiis08 has removed references from a paragraph and inserted citation needed notices. This is way more than I thought, but I think I'll be a Misplaced Pages genius when this is done. Have a good one,Harvest09 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service. So far it is the only one that mentions Stewart and it doesn't have anything to do with all the dramatic events, murder, riots etc, Harvest09 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Get your facts correct. I did not remove ANY source. I added fact tags for healing claims. Secondly, Google news archive is NOT a "low budget internet newspaper photocopy service." BBiiis08 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry BBiiis, you are correct, lets get the ref going because its kind of obvious stuff, like Amens book and testimonies. Thanks,Harvest09 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • • BBiiis08 has reinserted the controversial paragraph and it is even more unclear. "In 1970, after AA Allen died Stewart gained possession of Allen's Miracle Life Fellowship International and the Miracle Valley property, which was then renamed the Don Stewart Evangelistic Association (and later the Don Stewart Association). On the property from 1979 until 1982, nearly 300 members of a group isolated themselves with Frances Thomas professing what locals said was an "anti-white doctrineand..." The name of the property was never changed or renamed "Don Stewart Association." I don't think this is right to do to a living person. None of the articles associate him directly with the group that had all the trouble. biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?Harvest09 (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

See: Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph (Note there were no objections from Harvest09 though he was editing[REDACTED] over the relevant days. On the other hand, two editors agree with inclusion.). I also mentioned the proposed paragraph at the AN/I board for opinions ("I added my proposed addition here"... note Harvest09 posted a little further down after that). The paragraph includes RS. If Harvest09 wants to call them "potentially libellous" he's going to have a really hard time working on articles. I find this continued behavior unproductive, hostile and inflammatory (WP:CIVIL and WP:TE). BBiiis08 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this works but someone named Tgreach, used to edit similar pages in a similar way to BBiiis. Can you have two names at once? Harvest09 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of your false accusations and have started creating a list of your WP:TE, which includes your flat out lies. I will be reporting your behavior shortly. And for the record, no I am not Tgreach. BBiiis08 (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question I have read through all of this new material posted whilst I was away for a couple of days. Harvest I have two important questions for you; (1) Why did you not return to this part of the talk page to provide your input and objections at that time?, and (2) Why have you made a personal attack upon BBiiis above with these words Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing? - ? Please return here with your answers as soon as you can.--VS 20:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing something wrong. As soon as I found where the new addition was posted on the discussion page I commented on it, but we were commenting at another part of the page on this same subject and I didn't see this. I don't mean to personally attack anyone, BBiiis wrote one thing in his propsed insertion and then the first draft he put in the article made it look like the property with the problems was named after Stewart. ("Miracle Valley property, which was then renamed the Don Stewart Evangelistic Association (and later the Don Stewart Association"). After I made the comment to you that I wasn't sure this was done by accident he corrected it. He has done this other times.

Steve, I really wouldn't want your job sorry this has been such a bother. But now I feel like I'm responsible for making things worse. Sorry, but I know so much of this article is just onesided.Harvest09 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Response It seems to me that this article is progressing rather appropriately. If the fact is that parts of the article are being adjusted after you (and others) comment then that is a part of the reasonable methods we employ here at wikipedia. That the article is one-sided in parts is okay provided that all parts are adequately sourced through reliable third party references, and they do not give undue weight to one or other aspect. If you want another side to be included you have the same rights as all other editors - again providing you are able to provide adequately sourced information. From that perspective it seems to me then that you and BBiiis have the same ideal in mind - to update the Stewart article with what you see as appropriate content. The place for discussion about whatever is contentious is on that article's talk page and I recommend you follow that process.

In relation to the comment you make about the difficulty of my job I can say that I have no problem with my volunteer role as it stands to date, however difficulty does ensue in those cases that I have to block editors for such things as making personal attacks - such as when they comment on editors and not on content. Can I trust that you will refrain from such comments in the future please?--VS 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in answer to the question, yes no personal attacks,Harvest09 (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to work this out. Just so you know, despite your unasnwered question, Harvest still edits wikipedia. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong? Thanks for volunteering.Harvest09 (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK favor

Hello. The DYKadminbot is dead, and the DYK template is overdue for an update. Would you be willing to do it? I can show you instructions. Shubinator (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - with instructions please.--VS 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Instructions are at Misplaced Pages:Did_you_know#Updating_the_DYK_template and the bottom of the queue. I'll give a summary here. The update should be done from Queue 3. First copy the pic to en and protect it. Second copy the hooks from Queue 3 to the DYK template. That's the main part done. Third, reset the timer. Fourth, update the next queue count to 4. Then I'll do the credits. Afterward you can clear Queue 3. (The instructions on the other pages mention archiving, but I'll take care of that.) Shubinator (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think I have it all - but the timer part is perplexing me a bit.--VS 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Actually just checked and timer seems right too - please check and let me know what else I need to do. Are you okay with credits?--VS 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. The next update queue works. Actually, since you took it from next update, can you change the bot queue number to 3? The timer looks fine. Oh, and the pic needs to be protected. Shubinator (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Both done - thanks for your assistance also with the minor apostrophe mark 'error at Recent Additions.--VS 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Thank you for doing the update. I'll do the credits and clear the queue...that one isn't protected. Again, thanks for your help! I may come back to you if the bot stays dead. Shubinator (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Further on spin

Don't know what you can/would want to do with it, but shortly before you blocked him he posted this on my talk page, accusing me of harassing him: . carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I noted that earlier Carl. I won't extend his current block but I feel (hope ?) he understands that I will escalate his next block should he return to uncivil editing.--VS 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for missing where you noted it. And thank you, Steve. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor, if you don't mind......

Hey Steve, I'm going to be gone for a while (hopefully just a few days, but depends on what they find...) and I was wondering if you could keep an eye on Matt Smith (British actor) for me. Specifically, there's at least one person that constantly re-adds a non-free image to the article against policy. This one, or other copies of it, to be precise. An IP address did the same, and it stayed for quite a while. I'm hoping nothing gets added, but I'd rather be safe than sorry...Hope to talk to you soon. Templarion 善意 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay I will do my best Templarion. Good luck.--VS 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding copyrighted text.

Millere08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding copyrighted text in which I warned them (for adding copyrighted text in the Melbourne rail network article) but have continued to do so with text copied from City of Melbourne() and also Future Melbourne(). Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

and just added Future Melbourne again. Bidgee (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Standby - checking edits now.--VS 08:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem. Just to add terms and conditions (See 8. Copyright and trademarks) on Future Melbourne and the content is owned by the City of Melbourne. Bidgee (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes I agree with your synopsis. I have given Millere08 a short block and a notice requesting that he read through the copyright policy before returning to edit. Thank you.--VS 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. I just frustrates me when editors just can't get the idea of copyrighted text or images and they keep adding it even after being warned. Maybe I've been out in the sun for too long? Bidgee (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Speaking of sun - did you make it to Quinty? If so what route?--VS 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OD Sorry to annoy you again but the 190.xx.xx.xx IP has returned to the Avianca and adding 1919. . Bidgee (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not annoying - dealt with. Now off to dinner for a bit.--VS 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Re: Qunity (Also see Licensing breach, What can I do?), Yes I did but on Saturday I did it and was murder! Went via Dunns Road and those 4 or 5 hill (lost count) were killers but the ones closest to the highway were ok. Did 50+km all up and feeling it. See the Quinty category. ;). Bidgee (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow big effort 50+ks - I can understand why your still feeling it.--VS 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yer. I think it's one of the biggest rides I've done (The Darwin to Palmerston is the biggest still). My knees and arms have the worst of the sunburn. With the power station what image would suit? File:Uranquinty Power Station 1.jpg or File:Uranquinty Power Station.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Both good images; However I'd go File:Uranquinty Power Station 1.jpg because it provides the expanse of the station in one view, and the colour clarity of the image is particularly eye catching.--VS 10:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Was the one I like too but was torn between the too! Made it easier to choose. ;) Bidgee (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Millere08's block has ended but seems that the editor has an POV against Connex in the Melbourne rail network article. Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Also the Avianca issue has returned and what do you think about the "Global Warming" section on the 2009 Victorian bushfires article? I'm off and will be back online this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry Bidgee I have been off-line for a couple of days with some computer malfunction. I note that you have adjusted Aviana back and it remains as per the discussion page at this stage.--VS 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer

Hi; I basically agree with your block, but since it occurred as a result of an extended antagonistic interaction, can I suggest that you post a short notice about what you have done at AN, so that other admins can confirm it? I don't forsee any problem, I just think it's a good thing to do in general. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, block review was requested at AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good morning to you both - have awoken just now to read your messages and have also read the review posted by ChildofMidnight at AN as well as the comment by Ncmvocalist. I will return to it later to see if there is anything more that needs to be said.--VS 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with layout

Hey Steve, can you tell me where I can get some layout advice regarding the placement of an image?

I want to put it to the right, but there is already a floating box (a chronology) to the right that pushes the image way down. I want to try to place it to the left of the floating box, but to the right of the text. At the moment I've put it to the left. It's the first image in the Dura-Europos article. Thanks. -- spin 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seemed to have resolved the specific image problem with a table kludge, putting both the text and image in table elements, but it still would be good to know where such issues could be discussed. Thanks. -- spin 12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Spin, sorry for the delay in responding, I have had some computer malfunctions but back now to a certain extend. I would suggest that this type of issue can probably be discussed here as an initial point of call.--VS 06:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. Looks like a good place to start. -- spin 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tylerwade123

User talk:Tylerwade123 made an unblock request, and as I was investigating it, I don't notice any outright vandalism in the past several days. I do notice a bit of an edit war firing up between himself and that Edward character, but I also see that he made a rudimentary effort to reach out to the other editor to resolve the conflict. Could you please elaborate on the reasoning behind the block, so that I may respond intelligently to his unblock request? I think if I can get him to agree to avoid editing the article until dispute resolution is attempted, perhaps we can make a good editor out of him. Please advise. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to give my side, as ‘that Edward character’. While I am the main person issuing warnings, a look at Tylerwade's edit history will show he had been in conflict with numerous editors on numerous pages and has received well over 50 warnings and about a dozen blocks in his 4 different IDs. He's fond of spamming categories, especially categories he has created and adding his own unsourced opinions to articles.

His unblock request claiming he has not edited after my latest level 4 warning is false, as I pointed out on his talk page. . Tylerwade is an admitted sockpuppeteer, as shown here and has continued to edit around the block after his Tylerwade ID was blocked and that IP has been blocked for doing so.

His 'attempt to reach out to me' was anything but as it also makes several false statements. He claims I was 'deleting notable categorys' when in fact, I was deleting unsupported categories. Rather than discuss things on talk pages, Tylerwade has repeatedly deleted comments from people that disagreed with him. while being anything but civil before finally attempting to bury the whole discussion. . And that’s just on one talk page.

His claim that in his ‘reaching out’ that I am ‘leaving certain web pages with multipy problems’ and his numerous accusations had no differences to back them up because his claims are false. Among other things he accuses me of ‘adding fansite sources’ when the sources I added come from the website of the company that produced the material. Edward321 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Edward. Based on your evidence, mainly of his continuing to edit via IP while his account is blocked, I have decided to decline his requst outright. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Greetings to you both and thanks to Jayron for stopping by with your initial question. Not much more to add I guess but I just wanted to say that I have flown to and from Sydney today and only just read your message. Best wishes.--VS 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your note on my talk page

Thanks for the advice. I respect the fact that it is important to be understanding of the needs of new users. But I would like to ask: what is the most appropriate action to take if a user creates an inappropriate page that claims to include passwords as User:Amvcoa did. I would regard such vandalism to be of an extremely serious nature that should be grounds for immediate blocking (or at best, does not require more than one warning prior to blocking). As a policy page states: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking." Albert584 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well I would agree more with your point of view if the writer repeated his creation. As it stood you (quite rightly) marked it for speedy deletion and then courtesy blanked - the material wasn't unblanked and it was speedily deleted within 40 minutes of your tag. I wonder what else we could hope to achieve by blocking the editor - given that blocking is always preventative and never punitive? Of course if they repeated or again disclosed the material you blanked then prevention would have called for blocking. Hope that makes sense? Appreciate you stopping by with your question - best wishes.--VS 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Muddybidgee River

No problem. Sounded like a fun day, I rested for the last few days (My back still aches a little from that Qunity ride). Nice photos too ;). No surprise that its rather wet up there, Last week I was in Canberra and when I got there it was sunny then headed to Belconnen were it was mostly sunny but headed back into the city then headed to the Embassies only to be stuck in a storm (unexpected too)! Funniest part was when I went to Aldi to get a few things and walk out to find it pouring down with rain. On the way back Yass add a good dumping but headed down the Hume and it soon dried up! ATM I'm still going though my Canberra images, editing Misplaced Pages and trying to get a history section done for Leeton. Bidgee (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just on another issue. I've noticed that User:Millere08 has been warned about not using the edit summary twice but the editor continues to make a number of single edits and without edit summaries. To me this editor seems to be rather disruptive by the lastest thing they have done. Editing when someone has the inuse template up. Bidgee (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a fourth and final request to add edit summaries (he has also had one less pointed request) - and provided an indication that further action may become needed if such edit summaries are left out. If Millere should disrupt by removing text or adding material without indication of the reason in the edit summary would you please let me know with detailed diffs.--VS 12:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING charges by User:Collect

I'm reluctantly bringing this to you as if there hasn't been enough drama today. User:Collect has three times today falsely charged me with a WP:OUTING violation in apparent retaliation for bringing the CarverM matter to your attention. As is obvious, this was all public information obtainable by throwing two words into a Google search. I have responded once , I don't care to respond again since this looks to me like a deliberate effort to escalate conflict or bait me, but I think that such efforts by Collect to further inflame the situation deserve a response. Thanks - Mike Doughney (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

CarverM didnt seem to have any problem with it: "I have never hidden my affiliations nor brought them up. So I am unsure as to why this is an issue." Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• No problem I was busy trying to clean up the lose ends at the CarverM's & Teledildonix's pages> I did note Collect's posts (and reverted one from the COI thread because it did not belong there at all. My take on this is as follows (and is posted here for both your and Collect's information). I will use an example to illustrate my point ... my Wiki name is VirtualSteve however as a real name it could be that I am Bob Snith, Albert Jobing, or even Betty Blushful etc - no-one knows. CarverM, for legitimate COI reasons was asked by you if he is M Carver. Importantly this was phrased more as a question and from that perspective he could have denied it; agreed or ignored. He has agreed. Given that M Carver chooses to use his own name on[REDACTED] I do not see this as an OUTING and I intend to take no further action.--VS 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the confirmation, Tele did the googling and posting. (19:07) The "confirmation" was not until (22:43) or well over three hours later. And per WP:OUTING the excuse that he confirmed his ID is insufficient to absolve the act. Doughey furthered the outing as well. "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." I submit the outing was both intentional and malicious, and "immediate" does not allow for the act to be cured by any admission later (see the THF case). Collect (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted - and you do note (I hope) that it is pretty hard to out someone who is in fact using their real name?--VS 12:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And I note that this is not given as an exception in the page. Note the excuse about THF and initials was also used? I suppose there is a line to be drawn. I would err on the side of privacy rather than on the side of "well looking at variants of the username and google and other stuff might lead to this conclusion." Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a line to be drawn. Initials are not a real name, CarverM is the editors real name, used voluntarily by the editor who has edited in the main (and perhaps only) on Rick Warren related pages. It is impossible to OUT a person who has outed himself and I am left wondering why you are so keen to stir the pot against Mike Doughney and Teledildonix. Now with respect please move on - unless of course you want to drop by with an apology to those two editors?--VS 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tylerwade123 again

Mythsearcher and I have been attempting to engage this user in dialog on his talk page. So far he does not seem to be understanding or responding favorably. I think it would help if you would respond to him as well. Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

206.248.226.88, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Tylerwade123. , is editing around the blocks of Tylerwade and one of his other socks. , using the 206.248.226.88 IP. Edward321 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hello Edward321 - I note that in my absence another Admin has indefinitely blocked Tylerwade123 and it appears both the IP's you point to are blocked for shorter periods also. From that perspective your request here may already be dealth with? If no then please let me know.--VS 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For dealing with the User:CarverM egrerious conflict of interest in Rick Warren and related articles in the most judicious, pro-Misplaced Pages fashion and helping defend the project's core values against those who misunderstand them. --Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well thank you kind fellow wikipedian. I appreciate the input from a stranger to this issue as it is always seems even nicer to have those not involved compliment the good intentions of others. Of course you are not a stranger now - thank you for stopping by. My very best wishes in return.--VS 09:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• • COI is something I am always watching, and this is one of the highest profile COIs we have had in a while. Again, thank you for being brave and correct, in the best traditions of Misplaced Pages. Happy editing!--Cerejota (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to grant rollback requests